In the whirlwind of technological advancements, artificial intelligence (AI) often becomes the scapegoat for broader societal issues. It’s an easy target, a non-human entity that we can blame for job displacement, privacy concerns, and even ethical dilemmas. However, this perspective is not only simplistic but also misdirected.

The crux of the matter isn’t AI itself, but the economic system under which it operates - capitalism. It’s capitalism that dictates the motives behind AI development and deployment. Under this system, AI is primarily used to maximize profits, often at the expense of the workforce and ethical considerations. This profit-driven motive can lead to job losses as companies seek to cut costs, and it can prioritize corporate interests over privacy and fairness.

So, why should we shift our anger from AI to capitalism? Because AI, as a tool, has immense potential to improve lives, solve complex problems, and create new opportunities. It’s the framework of capitalism, with its inherent drive for profit over people, that often warps these potentials into societal challenges.

By focusing our frustrations on capitalism, we advocate for a change in the system that governs AI’s application. We open up a dialogue about how we can harness AI ethically and equitably, ensuring that its benefits are widely distributed rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. We can push for regulations that protect workers, maintain privacy, and ensure AI is used for the public good.

In conclusion, AI is not the enemy; unchecked capitalism is. It’s time we recognize that our anger should not be at the technology that could pave the way for a better future, but at the economic system that shapes how this technology is used.

  • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    instead of an overhyped plagiarism machine first.

    If I paint an Eiffel Tower from memory, am I plagiarizing?

    If it’s not plagiarism when humans do it, it’s not plagiarism when a machine does it.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Of course it is. A machine is not a human.

      If you want to make this argument, then AI companies should be required to treat their AI models like employees. Paid for 40 hours a week of work, extra for overtime.

      If it’s human to have “memory” that isn’t subject to plagiarism, then it’s human enough to be paid hourly.

      • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t need to be paid to make a painting, I’ll just do it for fun or because a good friend wanted it.

        Why does a machine doing something that I do for fun constitute plagiarism?